Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this Internet-Draft. 

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF Specifications"_ can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/.

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback received.


- Document: draft-ietf-intarea-proxy-config-13

- Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli

- Review Date: 10/05/2026

- Intended Status: Standards Track

 
---

## Summary 

Choose one: 

- Has Nits: This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis 

A few minor operational observations:

- The document correctly emphasizes that locally configured policy takes precedence over dynamically learned policy. This is important to avoid unintended proxy expansion in managed environments.
- The recommendation to ignore the entire proxy configuration when resource limits are exceeded is operationally safe. Maybe, just a nice to have, implementations may benefit from additional guidance regarding logging and telemetry visibility when such conditions occur.
- Large rule sets and frequent provisioning domain updates may create operational scaling considerations on constrained devices. The current text acknowledges this appropriately.
- The requirement to use different hosts for distinct PvD configuration domains is operationally reasonable and avoids ambiguous policy association.

Also some nits:
- Terminology: The draft sometimes alternates between “proxy configuration”, “proxy policy”, and “proxy information”. A slightly more consistent terminology could improve readability.
- One additional enterprise example could help operational understanding.

And few typos:
- Section 2.1: “To allow clients to determine whether PvD Additional Information is a DNS record...” Maybe something is missing?
- Section 4: “...with a set with exceptions to bypass:” Maybe "with a set of ?"

Thanks
Daniele